I. The aseity of God in the Old Testament
A. Genesis
In the Genesis creation account, ‘In the beginning’ refers to the beginning of the universe. The expression bespeaks of the pre-existence of God. God created ex nihilo.6 he did not create out of his being – hence, creation is not an extension of God’s being. The fact presented there is cosmogony. In the Ancient Near East, there were both cosmogonies and theogonies. Their gods had beginnings and were identified with the basic elements of the cosmos. For instance, in Akkadian literature, “the first twenty lines of the first tablet of Enuma Elish contain a theogony that brings the gods connected to the primal elements into existence.”7 The attribute of aseity could not be ascribed to such Ancient Near Eastern gods because their existence was conditioned by some antecedent elements. Walther Eichrodt argues that “By their unqualified rejection of theogony the Old Testament affirmations establish the unconditional dependence of the world on God.”8 We can comfortably ascribe aseity to the God of Israel because he has no beginning and he pre-existed created reality. The Israelites’ God is a being who did not come into being – he is an eternally and sufficiently existing being. In John Webster’s articulation at the 2009 Hayward lecture at Acadia University in Canada, creation does not bring any perfection and enhancement to God nor does God create due to any external compulsion.9 God is absolute and the reason behind creation was not to meet any insufficiency. Webster adds that creation is not a modification of any pre-existing entity. Further explanation comes from Aleke who adopts Kasper’s description that “God is the ultimate, ungrounded Ground of all reality that sustains and moves everything.”10 Aleke’s conceptualization is in line with the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.
The Genesis creation account in chapter 1 and 2 indicates God’s independence and freedom. God positioned each creature on its proper place. he freely created Adam and Eve in his own image and likeness. he gave dominion to humanity not because of any insufficiency on his part but because he graciously chose to partner with humanity in caring for the earth. The beginning of Genesis 1:1 also marked the beginning of time and space. In other words, God pre-exists time and space and exists independently of history.
B. Job
In the book of Job, one notes that Job and his three friends believed the retributive justice scheme of interpretation whereby the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer. Job was perplexed because he suffered while being righteous. he held that God had perverted justice, was throwing arrows of poison against him and had become his (Job’s) enemy. The three friends, believing that Job was suffering because of wrongdoing, appealed to revelation, tradition and observation to try to convince Job to repent in order to experience renewal from God.
Noting the shortcomings of the arguments of the four men, Elihu was compelled from inside to declare his wealth of wisdom. Elihu referred to God’s wisdom, justice, righteousness, mystery and sovereignty in his response to the four men. Elihu asks in 34:13 whether anyone appointed God over the earth and put him in charge of the whole world. God has power to give and withdraw life because he is independent and self-sufficient. The mighty creatures are under his control. One could deduce from passages such as Job 35:5-8, 36:24-33 and 37:1-20 that Elihu premises his stance on the aseity of God. he shows that God alone created and has power over nature and that humanity adds nothing to the essence of God. Commenting on Job 33:13, Andersen interprets Elihu’s stance that “Job has dared to ignore the dividing line between Creator and creature; he has made a cognitive image of God in order to become a judicial counterpart to him.”11 Andersen could be construed as stressing the ontological distinction between the Creator and creature.
God makes two discourses from chapter 38 to 41 with an interlude on 40:3-5 in which he affirms Elihu’s strand of thought. God poses a barrage of questions to Job which could be interpreted to underline his attribute of aseity. God created Job and the rest of the created order including the leviathan and behemoth that Job cannot control. God’s cosmic design and governance identified in the discourses point towards creation ex nihilo. God’s existence is independent of any being whereas that of created entities is contingent upon him. God laid the foundations of the earth and marked off its dimensions without any helper. The Creator sustains the earth. Even the inanimate creation testifies to God’s sovereignty and surpassing wisdom. The responses of Job signify that God does not share anything with creation in terms of being.
For some scholars, “The theophany has seemed so obtuse to some that it stands as a classic example of obfuscation — changing the subject to avoid the issue, distracting the questioner and inspiring terror all at once.”12 Some go further to claim that Job’s responses in 40:3-5 and 42:1-6 may have resulted from terror from God’s discourses. To the contrary, the character of Job in the book reveals his understanding of God as the wholly Other. Job’s response actually shows his submission to the will of God. God maintains order in the universe. Job willingly acknowledges his creaturely limitedness and humbly submits that he is not part of God.
C. Psalms
The book of Psalms displays God’s majesty in creation. Selected Psalms like Psalm 136 (especially verses 1-9) teach that God created and he was not created. The Creator is designated the God of gods and Lord of lords. Some sections of scholarship suggest monolatry saying that the Israelites acknowledged the existence of many gods but chose to worship only one, the God of their fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Closer look at the Psalm indicates monotheism in such passages. God made the heavens and spread out the earth upon the waters. The pre-existence of God is taught in this Psalm. Psalm 139 (especially verses 13-19) portrays God as the maker of humanity and the earth. Psalm 104, which some have described as the second creation account, celebrates the providence, majesty and sole creatorship of God. God created the heavens and the earth majestically. The Psalm denotes creation ex nihilo. It also shows that the created reality is not an extension of the being of God and that God sustains creation by his majesty. Verse 24 teaches that God created in wisdom. The verse is reminiscent of Proverbs 3:19-20 which states that God created by wisdom where wisdom is construed by some scholars as the attribute of God not a pre-existing entity which God used to create the world. The earth is endowed with wisdom. In a nutshell, creation theology in the psalms affirm the aseity of God whereby God pre-existed and that he exists in a supremely distinctive category as contrasted with existence of creation. The Psalter presents God as the wholly Other who created and reigns over all creation. Creation declares the aseity of God.
II. Selected scholars on the aseity of God
Scholars have argued for an acknowledgement of the aseity of God from various perspectives. Their arguments could be used to augment the case advanced in this article where the aseity of God is identified from the Old Testament creation discourses. For instance, Brent Rempel argues that “The aseity and particularity of God converge in ‘God’s self-correspondence’, that is, in the notion that God’s antecedent existence corresponds with God for us.”13 Rempel continues that “In Webster’s hands, the principles of particularity and aseity lead to a form of ‘holism’, in which God’s being-in-act is viewed as a coherent whole.” Tyler Wittman argues that John Webster discusses “relations of origin as materially transparent to the perfect movement of God’s life in and from himself.”14 Reference here is to God’s self-sufficiency, self-communication, self-reference and self-preservation. Wittman contends:
The distinction between uncreated and created is basic to the doctrine of creation. As the creator of all things ex nihilo, God is uncreated and therefore qualitatively distinct from all things. Whereas creatures move towards their perfection as they enact their natures, God is simply perfect and has no distinction between his being and his act, or his essence and existence.15
To paraphrase Wittman, God is perfect in uncreatedness. Wittman further states that “When set forth in this manner, God’s perfection is not an ‘inclusive,’ but ‘exclusive’ one in that it does not have creatures as an integral aspect of the fullness it describes.”16
Rempel continues that “The doctrine of divine aseity denotes God’s self-existent triune life, which anchors God’s bestowal of life. Construed negatively, aseity establishes the incommensurability of God and creatures by distinguishing, without sundering, scripture and God’s self-communicative presence.”17 Shannon adds by arguing that “And with tri-unity as primary, God’s simple unity entails affirmation of the Son’s (and the Spirit’s) aseity.”18 Shannon further argues for the aseity of all persons of the Godhead and the mystery of the triune God.
The creation stories lead us to recognize that God is self-existent, immutable, mysterious and particular. His perfection is inherent and infinite rather than adventitious. However, LaCugna and Eiesland both regarded divine relationality and aseity as mutually exclusive.19 In fact, modern theologians “misconstrue divine aseity as imputing solitariness, narcissism, self-indulgence, and non-relationality to the nature of God, and, therefore, reject such a divine perfection.”20 This modern theological rejection of aseity is indeed premised on an assumption that “otherness” is at odds with communion. To address the concerns, the present argument holds that relationality is intrinsic to the essence of the triune God apart from creation. There is no deficiency in God’s being and relational quality that require human complement. In this case, God does not require creation in order to be relational.
Karl Barth mentions scholars who have spoken forcefully of God but whose accounts fall short of the biblical understanding of the aseity of God. For instance, Barth refers to Kant who defined God as “the necessary postulate of the limit and goal of pure reason and the equally necessary presupposition of the law-giver and guarantor of practical reason,” Hegel who defined God as “the process of absolute spirit which exists eternally in itself” and Schleiermacher who described God as “the source of the absolute dependence of our consciousness.”21 Such ideas portray God as only the projection of humanity. The creation narratives further affirm the primacy of God’s attribute of aseity. It could be realized that pre-existence denotes self-existence.
Barth continues that “God’s revelation draws its authority and evidence from the fact that it is founded on itself apart from all human foundations.”22 This means God’s existence is absolute whereas that of creation is contingent upon the absolutely existing God. The Old Testament accounts mentioned above show the transcendence and freedom of God above creation. Though distinct from creation, God conditions and associates with creation. he remains self-conditioning and unconditioned by anything else. In his freedom and sovereignty, God creates and exercises power over creation. The selected Old Testament creation narratives display God as the sole ultimately existing being. Logically, God exists ultimately whereas created reality exists penultimately. So, ultimating any dimension and system of creation becomes idolatry.
III. The aseity of God and Panentheism
This section seeks to highlight the aseity of God through a critique of panentheism. Philip Clayton defines panentheism as “the view that all things are contained within the divine, although God is also more than the world.”23 Clayton employs the ‘cosmic Christ’ New Testament passages like Col. 1-2 and Paul’s address to the Areopagus in Acts 17 to advance his panentheistic teaching. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines panentheism as “the belief that the Being of God includes and penetrates the whole universe, so that every part of it exists in Him…that His Being is more than, and is not exhausted by, the universe.” Panentheists hold that God creates not ex nihilo but out of his own being. They boast that their stance affirms immanence and shows closer relationship between God and created order. Clayton further claims that panentheism is preferable in that it offers a “more effective response to various theological, philosophical, ethical, social-political difficulties.”24 he claims that classical theism fails to mediate biblical theology to the contemporary challenges facing the world. Some scholars today, regarding classical theism as inadequate, are using panentheism to engage the scientific age and to foster dialogue between Christianity and other religions. Nevertheless, panentheists’ ontological identification of God and creation, to some extent, renders all their promises impotent. From the theistic vantage point, any being that is ontologically part of creation could not sufficiently engage the scientific age nor direct inter-religious dialogue.
Benedikt Paul Göcke justifies and clarifies Karl Krause’s panentheistic philosophy of science. he construes Krause as arguing that “the existence and nature of the world is an essentiality of God as such…an intrinsic determination of God…a finite realization of the essentialities of God and thereby yet already in God.”25 In this understanding, the world is a constitutive element of the whole that is God. The world is an inner structure of God and God is both foundational to and beyond the world. Panentheists believe that the being of God is both indistinguishable and distinguishable from that of the world. For them, world history is the history of the self-transformation of God. Göcke’s and Krause’s stance stands against the theistic teaching of the immutability of God.
Göcke holds that “Monotheism in general has a problem in making plausible creatio ex nihilo before the Court of Reason.”26 he agrees with Griffin who argues that creation ex nihilo was an innovation of second century theologians as Tertullian and Irenaeus in response to Marcion’s gnostic theology. Panentheism then will be inconsistent with the doctrine of creation out of absolute nothingness.
Barth argues that “God does not form a whole with any other being either in identity with it or as compounding or merging with it to constitute a synthesis.”27 Created reality does not form part of God. Barth designated panentheism as “The mythology of a merely partial and to some extent selected identity of God with the world.”28 he categorizes panentheism among the outlooks which “seek to represent the relation between God and the reality distinct from Himself as the relation of mutual limitation and necessity.”29 As argued above, creation did not proceed from the essence of God. Paraphrasing Barth, the existence of created reality does not in any way belong to the essence and existence of God himself. Further inspiration is drawn from Webster’s notion of “a radical distinction between uncreated and created being…that the doctrine of creation concerns an external work of God.”30 Such logic excludes any possibility of an internal becoming on the part of the Creator. Webster further comments that God’s invisible nature, though manifest in the visible world, exceeds the limits of creaturely intelligence.
In the final analysis, the aseity of God renders panentheism redundant. The foregoing discussion suggests that the ethical and epistemological implications of panentheism would be unfulfilling. Feinberg contends that “Aseity is best understood as God’s self-existence…and independence in will, purposes and desires.”31 While acknowledging Feinberg’s statement, God’s independence should include ontology.32 God is ontologically independent. For an ontologically dependent being can be independent in terms of will, purposes and desires. So, aseity should be ascribed primarily in the realm of ontological independence—which could be basic for other dimensions of independence. God is unbecoming—he is not a being of potentialities.
IV. Implications for Christian spirituality in Africa
After establishing the aseity of God, we explore its implications for Christian spirituality in Africa. Olabamiji argues that “Theological assessment of the notion of divine aseity from a Christian perspective in the African context is traceable to the Africans’ knowledge of God and the existence of God.”33 Africans knew the self-existence of the Supreme Being even before the proclamation of the gospel on the continent. For the sake of illustrating the significance of the doctrine of the aseity of God to Christian spirituality in Africa, two challenges have been singled out in this paper: syncretism and the related ideologies of naturalism and scientism.
Syncretism comes from the Greek word ‘synkretismos,’ and it originates from the tradition of the Island of Crete, where various quarreling groups, who under normal circumstances would not agree, joined forces together against a common enemy.34 It is the amalgamation of Christian and African traditional values which are incompatible to such an extent that the identity of the Christian faith becomes blurred. In such scenarios, there is fusion of the fundamental tenets of the gospel and the elements of African traditional cultures and religions. The doctrine of the aseity of God becomes important. The pre-existent and self-existent God, the Creator of the universe, is sovereign and all-powerful. All forces standing against him will not prevail. Some church members consult spirit mediums in times of sickness, death and other hard experiences of life. The attribute of the aseity of God bespeaks of sovereignty, among others. With good understanding, Christians would not seek divination and protective charms in touch times. The Creator God has powers over the opposing forces. He pre-existed and exists sufficiently apart from all the powers and principalities of the world. And so, believers should seek refuge in him at all times both in the presence and absence of life-threatening experiences like witchcraft. And ancestral worship, be it explicit or implicit, is critiqued on the basis of the aseity of God. Worship should be directed solely to the self-existent God. In some instances, syncretism arises from the over-affirmation of African traditional religions and cultures. For instance, Brand argues that “the ancestors could conceivably act in ways that are beneficial to their kin, and to that extent deserve to be called agents of salvation.”35
In Brand’s theological project, the ancestors are accorded secondary or penultimate agency of salvation in relation to Christ. Brand argues for the continuation of the ancestral cult within Christianity whereby “such a cult need not only consist in the remembrance of, and prayers for the dead, but can also include requests for help addressed to them.”36 Clearly, our ancestors did not pre-exist creation and so could not be self-sufficient. And the agency of salvation, whether ultimate or penultimate, could not be ascribed to non-self-existent entities.37 This viewpoint could find support in Kato who listed syncretism as one of the threats to biblical Christianity in Africa. Kato critiqued Idowu’s radical continuity between African traditional religions and Christianity. For Kato, “The final challenge for the African Christian is to make Christianity culturally relevant while holding fast to its ever-abiding message.”38 One should agree with Kato that the gospel message is inspired and the modes of transmission should be rightly contextualized. The aseity of God would enable us to do legitimate contextualization with the recognition that no elements of any traditional cultures and religions in the world share in the self-sufficiency of God. hence, the freedom of the gospel to examine and shape world cultures. The approach would guide us to avoid tampering with the gospel message lest we produce our own gospel which cannot be the gospel at all.
The second challenge is posed by the related ideologies of naturalism and scientism. The teachings under these ideologies question the supernatural and over-affirm nature and scientific reasoning. Subtly, there develops a religion of science. For instance, secular humanism in Malawi is founded upon the basic assumptions of naturalism and scientism. Phiri recounts that in scientism (as well as naturalism), “science becomes Godless and turns into a god.”39 Furthermore, the questioning of creationism in favor of Darwinian evolution and the denial of the eschatological teaching of the end of this age are informed by the ideologies of naturalism and scientism. However, the Old Testament creation narratives inculcate God’s pre-existence and self-existence over and above both the natural phenomena and intellectual domains. In this case, science and other domains of knowledge should be construed from the doctrine of the aseity of God. The premise of this assertion is that these noble domains find their true foundation, identity, meaning and utility in the God who fully grounds their essence. At this juncture, one would get inspiration from Eichrodt who states that “creation is understood as the free institution of the conditioned by the Unconditioned, it is not possible for the life of the creature to be an independent unfolding of its own nature under its own authority.”40 In our context, we argue that science is not self-governing nor self-sufficient but conditioned by the self-existing Creator. Ideally, intellectual domains draw their authority from the Creator.
Additionally, the aseity of God could lead us to take our cue from Elihu when responding to the puzzles and mysteries of life. Based on Elihu’s (as well as God’s) speeches, the answer to Job’s concerns lay in accepting the aseity of God and its import for existential reality. The self-existent and self-sufficient God is mysterious. We would not seek to have all the answers to life’s dilemmas but rather submit to the sovereign will and purposes of God. Christians would not insist on self-made schema and frameworks of interpretation but rather acknowledge our limitedness and humbly submit to the unlimited authority of God. The aseity of God gives room for acceptance of the supernatural things and explanations. It leads people to humbly acknowledge insufficiency and contingent character of scientific reasoning and human capacities. Attempts at human autonomy would constitute a denial of God’s aseity and an ascription of self-existence and self-sufficiency to human beings.
Despite the critique from the panentheists against classical theism, the doctrine of the aseity of God affirms the immanence of God. In his freedom and self-existence, and without deifying creation, the transcendent God becomes immanent in the world for the sake of communion with his creatures. Theistic transcendence is distinct from panentheistic transcendence. The non-historical Creator freely enters the historical realm without compromising his aseity. The aseity calls upon humanity to praise God for his grace to reveal himself to us. For without his self-revelation, nothing of him could be known to humanity—no anthropocentric system could comprehend God. The notion of the aseity of God leads humans to awe and humility before God. For how could a contingent being fully comprehend a self-existent one?
The notion of the aseity of God is found in traditional African thought. For instance, E. Bolaji Idowu remarks that “The absolute control of the universe and of all things is due, in African thought, basically to the fact that all other beings exist in consequence of him; and that whatever power or authority there may be exists in consequence of him; because it derives from him.”41 The Supreme Being exists independently of all other beings. The Creator exists absolutely and exercises absolute control over his creation. The traditional understanding advances that the Creator is the reason for the existence of all other beings. The aspect of immanence makes the Christian understanding of the aseity of God unique as contrasted with that of some sectors of African traditional religions where the wholly Other is over-transcendent.42
V. Implications for the society in Africa
The society in Africa is experiencing manifold challenges including poverty, corruption, poor political governance, wars and the attendant refugee crisis, ecological imbalance and diseases. Many initiatives done by governments and other stakeholders to address these challenges only bear minimal fruits. Mostly, the cause of these societal challenges is the human condition. So, anthropocentric strategies could not succeed to address the challenges. For instance, the corruption by government officials subject the masses to poor health services. And we read in book of Romans that the reality created by the self-sufficient, self-existing God is groaning because of the transgressions of humanity. The aseity of God means that nature and the world order are neither self-existing nor self-motivating but dependent on God. Attempts to manage them apart from God constitute a departure from God’s intent. In the Old Testament creation narratives one could discern God’s original intent for humanity and the rest of the created reality. Accordingly, the notion of the aseity of God could offer promise to Christians in their engagement with the public square. Truly, God as the ultimate ungrounded Ground of all reality becomes in control of the social and natural life. he then is our hope in the wake of social and natural ills facing the African society. If the social and natural are part of the being of God, as panentheists claim, then there is no hope. How could one ascertain that the part of God that is not creation is capable of addressing the challenges disturbing creation? If there are problems in the created part of God’s being, can one have confidence that the uncreated part of God’s being bears no responsibility for such problems since both the uncreated and created portions constitute the ontology of God?
Following panentheistic reasoning, neither the uncreated nor created part of God would be self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency would dwell in the whole being – the two combined. The challenge would be that the social and natural problems exist in the created part which itself is part of the self-sufficient being. In other words, the problems exist within the God. Logically, if creation would be part and parcel of God, then God cannot give promise to address the problems that exist within his ontology. The cosmic dislocation would suggest ontological dislocation within the reality that is God. Humanity cannot turn to the panentheistic God to worship and seek guidance from him.
Even if the uncreated part of God would address the problems in the created order, the development would signify the presence of contradictory elements within the whole being of God. The problems may suggest the imperfection of the uncreated part of God. The uncreated part of God could not claim sovereignty and independence.
According to Arno Meiring, “Africans believe that God is the creator of everything including society. Society … is a moral entity since the Creator provided a moral code which directs individual behaviour patterns.”43This demonstrates that in the African traditional understanding, the Creator is distinct from society and that ethics is grounded in the Creator. A contention could be made here that traditionally, Africans subscribe to what could be called the ‘from above approach’ regarding the origins and content of ethics. Christian theology builds on that understanding in teaching the aseity of God and engaging with the social ills.
VI. Conclusion
The paper discussed the notion of the aseity of God as drawn from the Old Testament creation narratives in three books of Genesis, Job and Psalms. It further critiqued panentheism to underscore the theistic notion of the aseity of God and proceeded to proffer implications of the notion to Christian spirituality and society in Africa. In view of the foregoing discussion, one could advance that the notion of aseity could constitute the prolegomena to the doctrine of God. The hope is that the doctrine of the aseity of God, drawn from the Old Testament creation discourses, could inspire a vibrant Christian spirituality and flourishing society in Africa. Further exploration should be done on how the notion of the aseity of God could inform the projects of cultural renaissance and theological decolonization which, if taken to the extreme and absolutized, could devitalize Christian spirituality in Africa.
